What is the test for holding an oral hearing in a medical malpractice case?

In consideration of the above, I have determined that an oral hearing is not necessary in order to fairly address the issue under appeal in the present case. Both parties have had a meaningful opportunity to participate in this appeal by providing written submissions; I have even accepted new evidence from the employer after he was explicitly advised that the time to submit new evidence had passed. I am satisfied that a proper analysis of the issue under appeal does not require a direct condemnation of the honesty or integrity of either party but depends largely upon the contemporaneous medical and witness evidence. More importantly, I am satisfied that I can resolve the differences in the evidence between the parties without holding an oral hearing by considering what evidence is in harmony with the preponderance of probabilities as contemplated in Faryna v. Chorny.